The Word of God

bakkiesbotha

I started a thread here, where two issues were under discussion - the fate of those who have never heard the gospel, and whether a Christian should hold beliefs that are not based on the words of Christ.

A moderator advised me that this was a hindrance to the free flow of discussion and that it would be better to start a new thread that was only about one primary issue.

So, I hope that it is acceptable for me to strictly define this thread in the opening post, so that any respondents will also be held to the standards of sticking strictly to the primary issue.

This thread is about whether it makes sense for a Christian to believe anything other than the words of Jesus. I propose that the examination of this question should begin at first principles and then proceed logically from there, so that any conclusions reached have a solid foundation, and also so that the roots of any disagreements are clear and obvious.

Ok so far?

So, I'm going to start with a simple syllogism:

God makes the rules.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus makes the rules.

Any thoughts?

antiskeptic

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

This thread is about whether it makes sense for a Christian to believe anything other than the words of Jesus. I propose that the examination of this question should begin at first principles and then proceed logically from there, so that any conclusions reached have a solid foundation, and also so that the roots of any disagreements are clear and obvious.

Ok so far?

Okay

So, I'm going to start with a simple syllogism:

God makes the rules.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus makes the rules.

Any thoughts?

The workings of the Trinity aren't confined by such logic. Jesus is God but Jesus subordinates his will to the fathers will and only does what his father will.

That might prove a problem? Can it be sidestepped some way - by saying that Jesus is one who applies the rules - him being judge, for instance.

philologos

So we should ignore the rest of the Bible, and the Apostles?

antiskeptic

Jakkass wrote: »

So we should ignore the rest of the Bible, and the Apostles?

If the OP can build his logical argument in that direction then logically, yes.

chozometroid

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

This thread is about whether it makes sense for a Christian to believe anything other than the words of Jesus.

In the Beginning was the Word. The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ. Jesus was/is the Word of God.
So, the entire Bible is made by the Word/Jesus Christ.

So, you are asking if it's okay to believe in any extrabiblical material? Sure, why not?

Fanny Cradock

Believe anything other than the words of Jesus? What does this mean? Like others, I believe in plenty of things that are external to the words of Jesus and the bible. If you are seeking a different slant on your question then I think that you have to set a more exacting structure to your question.

Joe1919

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

I started a thread here, where two issues were under discussion - the fate of those who have never heard the gospel, ......

The modern catholic church more or less believes that God is infinitely merciful and probably everyone will be saved. I base this assertion from my readings of the the writings of the last two popes and particularly paragraph 20 of http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

and paragraph 1,4 & 13 of

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0215/_INDEX.HTM

Read for yourself.

PDN

Joe1919 wrote: »

The modern catholic church more or less believes that God is infinitely merciful and probably everyone will be saved. I base this assertion from my readings of the the writings of the last two popes and particularly paragraph 20 of http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

and paragraph 1,4 & 13 of

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0215/_INDEX.HTM

Read for yourself.

Joe, I did read it for myself. And I don't see it as saying anything of the kind. Could you maybe quote the bits that say probably everybody will be saved?

Joe1919

PDN wrote: »

Joe, I did read it for myself. And I don't see it as saying anything of the kind. Could you maybe quote the bits that say probably everybody will be saved?

The most important quote is in paragraph 20 of
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

20. ............For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit";81 it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".82

also in
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia_en.html

2...The present-day mentality, more perhaps than that of people in the past, seems opposed to a God of mercy, and in fact tends to exclude from life and to remove from the human heart the very idea of mercy. The word and the concept of "mercy" seem to cause uneasiness in man,.......

4......In this way, mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God's justice, and in many cases is shown to be not only more powerful than that justice but also more profound.

13..... Mercy in itself, as a perfection of the infinite God, is also infinite. Also infinite therefore and inexhaustible is the Father's readiness to receive the prodigal children who return to His home. Infinite are the readiness and power of forgiveness which flow continually from the marvelous value of the sacrifice of the Son. No human sin can prevail over this power or even limit it.

14.... Mercy that is truly Christian is also, in a certain sense, the most perfect incarnation of "equality" between people,......

chozometroid

Joe1919 wrote: »

The most important quote is in paragraph 20 of
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

20. ............For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit";81 it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".82

also in
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia_en.html

1. ..... we must travel this day with every individual......

2...The present-day mentality, more perhaps than that of people in the past, seems opposed to a God of mercy, and in fact tends to exclude from life and to remove from the human heart the very idea of mercy. The word and the concept of "mercy" seem to cause uneasiness in man,.......

4......In this way, mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God's justice, and in many cases is shown to be not only more powerful than that justice but also more profound.

13..... Mercy in itself, as a perfection of the infinite God, is also infinite. Also infinite therefore and inexhaustible is the Father's readiness to receive the prodigal children who return to His home. Infinite are the readiness and power of forgiveness which flow continually from the marvelous value of the sacrifice of the Son. No human sin can prevail over this power or even limit it.

14.... Mercy that is truly Christian is also, in a certain sense, the most perfect incarnation of "equality" between people,......

I fail to see how any of this even remotely gives the impression of:

The modern catholic church more or less believes that God is infinitely merciful and probably everyone will be saved.

Joe1919

chozometroid wrote: »

I fail to see how any of this even remotely gives the impression of:

13..."No human sin can prevail over this power [of forgivness] or even limit it."

You really need to take your time and ponder on the words.

philologos

It depends on whether one is truly repentant and if one believes in the Gospel according to the Biblical text in it's numerous description of grace.

The position of the Catholic Church although worthy of discussion isn't the be all and end all on the subject within global Christianity.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

The position of the Catholic Church although worthy of discussion isn't the be all and end all on the subject within global Christianity.

I agree with you here but I do wonder what is meant by 'global Christianity'. i.e. Are there absolute core beliefs that are common to all Christian religions? For example, do all Christians believe in hell? How about Unitarians?

chozometroid

Joe1919 wrote: »

13..."No human sin can prevail over this power [of forgivness] or even limit it."

You really need to take your time and ponder on the words.

I would say it's still referring to people who repent, not just any old sinner. It's saying there is no sin that God lacks the power to forgive, as Jesus's death atoned for ALL the sins of mankind.
If someone doesn't believe on Jesus, they lack this free gift of salvation. If this statement is trying to say that everyone will be forgiven, whether they accept Jesus or not, then I say it's patently wrong.

Linus67

Everyone can be saved. To go to Heaven we must be truly remorseful for our sins. And those who are not will go to Purgatory or Hell. It is our actions that decide where we go when we die. If we choose to be bad people God will not let us into Heaven.

BlackWizard

Linus67 wrote: »

Everyone can be saved. To go to Heaven we must be truly remorseful for our sins. And those who are not will go to Purgatory or Hell. It is our actions that decide where we go when we die. If we choose to be bad people God will not let us into Heaven.

If that's the case then sure we might as well go and sin all day long. Lets start a few wars and mutilate young people for the fun of it. Sure we'll all be let into heaven once we get a chance to stop and think about our actions and remorse for our sins. I can't wait to sit down with Hitler over a glass of wine and some cheese while talking to Jesus about real estate prices.

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

So, I'm going to start with a simple syllogism:

God makes the rules.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus makes the rules.

Any thoughts?

God makes the rules.
God speaks through the Scriptures.
Therefore the Scriptures contain the rules.

The belief of the Christian Church, for over 1900 years, has been that all Scripture is theopneustos (literally 'God-breathed') as described in 2 Timothy 3:16. I don't see anything in this thread to change that.

bakkiesbotha

chozometroid wrote: »

In the Beginning was the Word.
The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ. Jesus was/is the Word of God.
So, the entire Bible is made by the Word/Jesus Christ.

Your conclusion that "the entire Bible is made by the Word/Jesus Christ" is fallacious as it doesn't follow from your premises, which made no mention of the Bible.

I am also not sure whether your premises are accurate. For example: "The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ."

What does that even mean??

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

God makes the rules.
God speaks through the Scriptures.
Therefore the Scriptures contain the rules.

Your conclusion is fallacious as it does not follow from your premises. God might speak through the scriptures but you haven't shown that He gives us the rules through the scriptures. You also fail to address the question of which scriptures to adhere to when they contradict each other.

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Your conclusion is fallacious as it does not follow from your premises. God might speak through the scriptures but you haven't shown that He gives us the rules through the scriptures. You also fail to address the question of which scriptures to adhere to when they contradict each other.

And if you think it's all about rules then you've missed the entire point of God, Jesus and the Bible. It's about relationship.

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

And if you think it's all about rules then you've missed the entire point of God, Jesus and the Bible. It's about relationship.

I know you're a mod and everything, but this thread isn't about the big picture.

It aims to answer one question only, by following a logical process. If you wish to disagree with the answer to this question, should we reach it, or to drive the process in a certain direction, then this thread gives you the opportunity to do so using logic.

If you wish to do so using an alternative method, or lack thereof, then, in my opinion at least, you should start another thread that aims to prove why logic, or any kind of systematic methodology should not be employed when it comes to religious belief. This would be an interesting thread, as I for one would like to see how you would avoid the conclusion that one can just pick and choose what one wants to believe, and effectively make up a religion to suit oneself.

Hope this post doesn't come across as cheeky. I'm trying to be precise in my language, not impolite.

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

I know you're a mod and everything, but this thread isn't about the big picture.

It aims to answer one question only, by following a logical process. If you wish to disagree with the answer to this question, should we reach it, or to drive the process in a certain direction, then this thread gives you the opportunity to do so using logic.

If you wish to do so using an alternative method, or lack thereof, then, in my opinion at least, you should start another thread that aims to prove why logic, or any kind of systematic methodology should not be employed when it comes to religious belief. This would be an interesting thread, as I for one would like to see how you would avoid the conclusion that one can just pick and choose what one wants to believe, and effectively make up a religion to suit oneself.

Hope this post doesn't come across as cheeky. I'm trying to be precise in my language, not impolite.

The problem is that your initial proposition is initself a picking and choosing of what you want to believe.

The only knowledge we have of the words of Jesus comes from their being recorded by other authors. Jesus Himself wrote no books. You have no logical basis for believing that those authors were any more or less reliable or inspired when recording the words of Jesus than they were in anything else that they wrote.

Therefore, to arbitrarily accept the words of the authors when they report the speech of Jesus, but to reject them in all other areas, is cherrypicking of the highest order.

God gives us revelation about Himself.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Therefore those books inspired by the Holy Spirit gives us our revelation of God. That includes rules and all.

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that your initial proposition is initself a picking and choosing of what you want to believe.

The only knowledge we have of the words of Jesus comes from their being recorded by other authors. Jesus Himself wrote no books. You have no logical basis for believing that those authors were any more or less reliable or inspired when recording the words of Jesus than they were in anything else that they wrote.

Indeed I don't. But this logic must also then apply to the whole of the Bible. And if the Bible is only a loosely compiled hodgepodge of ancient texts, all containing different, contradictory, and even unreliable narratives, then a belief system which treats all parts of the Bible as equally valid is not a belief system at all, but an ill-assorted mishmash where certain things are true at certain times and not at others. It is a way of giving man free rein to do, and believe, whatever he wants whenever he wants, as the Bible can be selectively used to justify anything at any time.

The real question this thread is trying to answer is: What is the basis of the Christian faith? These are the only 5 options:

(a) The Bible and only the Bible, and every word in it.
(b) The Bible and only the Bible, but just certain parts of it
(c) Every word in the Bible and certain other texts
(d) Certain parts of the Bible and certain other texts.
(e) None of the Bible and certain other texts.

So which one is it, and why?

JimiTime

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Indeed I don't. But this logic must also then apply to the whole of the Bible.

Fair enough, so you don't believe it to be accurate. So what is it we are discussing? The authenticity of the bible? I thought this was about believing something other than the words of Christ? PDN has pointed out the problem and lack of logic with such a stance. So what then must apply to the whole bible?

And if the Bible is only a loosely compiled hodgepodge of ancient texts, all containing different, contradictory, and even unreliable narratives then a belief system which treats all parts of the Bible as equally valid is not a belief system at all, but an ill-assorted mishmash where certain things are true at certain times and not at others.

And if its not?

It is a way of giving man free rein to do, and believe, whatever he wants whenever he wants, as the Bible can be selectively used to justify anything at any time.

If the bible is a steaming pile, it can be used for the above. If the bible contains the truth, it can be used for the above. How people use or mis-use it, takes nothing from the accuracy or truth contained therein.

The real question this thread is trying to answer is: What is the basis of the Christian faith? These are the only 5 options:

(a) The Bible and only the Bible, and every word in it.
(b) The Bible and only the Bible, but just certain parts of it
(c) Every word in the Bible and certain other texts
(d) Certain parts of the Bible and certain other texts.
(e) None of the Bible and certain other texts.

So which one is it, and why?

[/QUOTE]

You seem to want to lead people down a tunnel of your choosing in order to bash them over the head with your pre-conceptions.

The bible is a collection of books written by Gods prophets, Kings and servants. It contains, prophecy, narrative, poetry and metephor. Some are relevant to the nation of Israel but not to Us, such as the Mosaic Law. I believe it no less, it just does not apply to me in light of the coming of Christ and us entering the Gentile times.

The Basis of Christianity, is the testimony of the witnesses of the Christ, Jesus the Nazerene. This testimony is contained in what we call the bible. So the bible is the authoritive source of Gods revelation to Man.

Slav

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

What is the basis of the Christian faith? These are the only 5 options:

(a) The Bible and only the Bible, and every word in it.
(b) The Bible and only the Bible, but just certain parts of it
(c) Every word in the Bible and certain other texts
(d) Certain parts of the Bible and certain other texts.
(e) None of the Bible and certain other texts.

So which one is it, and why?

None of the above.

As you know there were times when Christians did not have the Bible. Or any Christian texts at all as the New Testament books (or Christian apocrypha) are younger then Christianity.

bakkiesbotha

JimiTime wrote: »

You seem to want to lead people down a tunnel of your choosing in order to bash them over the head with your pre-conceptions.

Not at all. Feel free to add another option if you believe I haven't covered all the bases.

JimiTime wrote: »

The bible is a collection of books written by Gods prophets, Kings and servants. It contains, prophecy, narrative, poetry and metephor. Some are relevant to the nation of Israel but not to Us, such as the Mosaic Law. I believe it no less, it just does not apply to me in light of the coming of Christ and us entering the Gentile times.

You believe something to be the Law, but also that it doesn't apply to you? Would the following be an accurate rephrasing of this belief:

You believe that some laws mentioned in the Bible were the law, but are no longer.

If so, this means that your belief is based on certain parts of the Bible and not others. Which parts have you chosen and what method have you used for selecting these parts?

JimiTime wrote: »

The Basis of Christianity, is the testimony of the witnesses of the Christ, Jesus the Nazerene. This testimony is contained in what we call the bible. So the bible is the authoritive source of Gods revelation to Man.

That is not a valid conclusion, I'm afraid. A valid conclusion to draw would be that Christian belief is based on the parts of the Bible that contain the above-mentioned testimony. And, by extension, not on any of the other parts.

Zombrex

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

This thread is about whether it makes sense for a Christian to believe anything other than the words of Jesus.

I might have missed this but how are you getting from God/Jesus always tells the truth to everyone else is lying?

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Not at all. Feel free to add another option if you believe I haven't covered all the bases.

OK.

The basis of the Christian faith is:
f) Primarily the Bible (by which I mean the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 66 books that compose the Canon of Scripture), interpreted in a coherent and consistent way. To this primary basis is added the secondary basis of our relationship with Jesus Christ, human reason, and the insights of other Christians throughout history.

You believe something to be the Law, but also that it doesn't apply to you? Would the following be an accurate rephrasing of this belief:

You believe that some laws mentioned in the Bible were the law, but are no longer.

If so, this means that your belief is based on certain parts of the Bible and not others. Which parts have you chosen and what method have you used for selecting these parts?

It would be more accurate to say that certain parts of the Bible were laws for Jews, and Jimitime is not Jewish.

This means that his interpretation of certain parts of the Bible are informed by other parts of the Bible because he seeks to understand them as a whole rather than misinterpreting one part to play it off against another.

That is not a valid conclusion, I'm afraid. A valid conclusion to draw would be that Christian belief is based on the parts of the Bible that contain the above-mentioned testimony. And, by extension, not on any of the other parts.

It is a perfectly valid conclusion. Christian belief is based on the biblical revelation because we believe it all to be inspired by God and therefore an objective revelation.

Cherrypicking which parts of the Bible we choose to believe would be to treat it as subjective.

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

OK.

The basis of the Christian faith is:
f) Primarily the Bible (by which I mean the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 66 books that compose the Canon of Scripture), interpreted in a coherent and consistent way. To this primary basis is added the secondary basis of our relationship with Jesus Christ, human reason, and the insights of other Christians throughout history.

It would be more accurate to say that certain parts of the Bible were laws for Jews, and Jimitime is not Jewish.

This means that his interpretation of certain parts of the Bible are informed by other parts of the Bible because he seeks to understand them as a whole rather than misinterpreting one part to play it off against another.

It is a perfectly valid conclusion. Christian belief is based on the biblical revelation because we believe it all to be inspired by God and therefore an objective revelation.

Cherrypicking which parts of the Bible we choose to believe would be to treat it as subjective.

So, Christians should believe every word of the Bible, and every word of the Bibe is the primary basis for Christian belief. If this is the case, who told you were allowed to interpret the Bible? It is either the clear, unvarnished word of God or it is not. Which is it to be?

To this primary basis is added the secondary basis of our relationship with Jesus Christ, human reason, and the insights of other Christians throughout history.

Who told you that human reason (which includes the insights of other Christians) was permissable? What makes you think that God would have taken the trouble to send his only son to earth to give us a message if we were capable of reasoning out his law for ourselves anyway?

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

So, Christians should believe every word of the Bible, and every word of the Bibe is the primary basis for Christian belief. If this is the case, who told you were allowed to interpret the Bible? It is either the clear, unvarnished word of God or it is not. Which is it to be?

That's just nonsense. Any text is simply a form of code by which the source conveys a message to the receptor. To understand any message, oral or written, you need to interpret it.

Who told you that human reason (which includes the insights of other Christians) was permissable? What makes you think that God would have taken the trouble to send his only son to earth to give us a message if we were capable of reasoning out his law for ourselves anyway?

It's not about law.

We are not capable of reasoning out God for ourselves. That's why we need the Bible, and why I specifically said that human reasoning is a secondary basis for the Christian faith.

If human reasoning is not permissable then I guess we're all going to have to stop this thread right here, aren't we? We can't hold any opinion about the Bible or anything else without human reasoning.

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

That's just nonsense. Any text is simply a form of code by which the source conveys a message to the receptor. To understand any message, oral or written, you need to interpret it.

Not if the message is clear and unambiguous, and originating from an authoritative source. So is it, or isn't it?

PDN wrote: »

It's not about law.

We are not capable of reasoning out God for ourselves. That's why we need the Bible, and why I specifically said that human reasoning is a secondary basis for the Christian faith.

If human reasoning is not permissable then I guess we're all going to have to stop this thread right here, aren't we? We can't hold any opinion about the Bible or anything else without human reasoning.

Human reasoning should indeed be used in order to choose one's belief system.This is what this thread is about. I am not aware of any divine sanction for human reasoning to be used to invent one's beliefs.

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Not if the message is clear and unambiguous, and originating from an authoritative source. So is it, or isn't it?.

No, even the most unambiguous and clear message requires interpretation.

Communication theory is that the person communicating the message (the source), tries his best to express the concepts in their mind as words or symbols (encoding). The person receiving the message (the receptor) then uses those words or symbols to try to reconstruct the concepts that the source has attempted to convey (decoding). Without interpretation there is no communication - unless of course you have perfected the art of the Vulcan Mind Meld.

In any communication, therefore, the issue is not whether we interpret or not. The issue is whether we interpret well enough to receive the message that the other party intended to send.

Human reasoning should indeed be used in order to choose one's belief system.This is what this thread is about. I am not aware of any divine sanction for human reasoning to be used to invent one's beliefs.

Nobody mentioned inventing beliefs. The use of human reasoning to make sense of the data we receive is essential to possessing a belief system.

For example, if Jesus says "you must be born again" then you cannot incorporate that into your belief system without utilising human reasoning. Does it mean that only Nicodemus needed to be born again? Does it mean that only Jews need to be born again? Does it mean, as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, that only the first 144,000 members of their group need to be born again. Or does it mean that I need to be born again? Without the application of human reasoning the statement of Jesus has no meaning.

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

No, even the most unambiguous and clear message requires interpretation.

Communication theory is that the person communicating the message (the source), tries his best to express the concepts in their mind as words or symbols (encoding). The person receiving the message (the receptor) then uses those words or symbols to try to reconstruct the concepts that the source has attempted to convey (decoding). Without interpretation there is no communication - unless of course you have perfected the art of the Vulcan Mind Meld.

In any communication, therefore, the issue is not whether we interpret or not. The issue is whether we interpret well enough to receive the message that the other party intended to send.

I am not familiar with communication theory and don't know what a Vulcan Mind Meld is, but I would imagine that this theory does not cover communication with God, and isn't relevant.

PDN wrote: »

Nobody mentioned inventing beliefs. The use of human reasoning to make sense of the data we receive is essential to possessing a belief system.

For example, if Jesus says "you must be born again" then you cannot incorporate that into your belief system without utilising human reasoning. Does it mean that only Nicodemus needed to be born again? Does it mean that only Jews need to be born again? Does it mean, as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, that only the first 144,000 members of their group need to be born again. Or does it mean that I need to be born again? Without the application of human reasoning the statement of Jesus has no meaning.

I agree that human reasoning should be used to build a system which applies different weighting to different parts of the Bible in a consistent manner. If this system is coherent and properly constructed, then it should leave us with no questions such as the above, which it would be premature to begin discussing at this point.

If it is impossible to construct such a system, then that leads us down a different avenue.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

No, even the most unambiguous and clear message requires interpretation.

And it's only by the skill of an author, that (s)he can write text that reasonably produces as few meanings as possible. Religious texts, on the other hand, often seem, no doubt inadvertently, to be written to support as many meanings as possible.

PDN wrote: »

For example, if Jesus says "you must be born again" then you cannot incorporate that into your belief system without utilising human reasoning. Does it mean that only Nicodemus needed to be born again? Does it mean that only Jews need to be born again? Does it mean, as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, that only the first 144,000 members of their group need to be born again. Or does it mean that I need to be born again? Without the application of human reasoning the statement of Jesus has no meaning.

Clearly, that one important sentence alone has a few meanings, each one with an associated degree of likelihood. When one extends that relative lack of precision to book-length, it's hardly surprising that there are 30,000 or so christian sects, each one with their own overlapping set of religious beliefs, and each with their own rationale for them.

The problem with a legalistic text which admits as few meanings as reasonably possible, is that it's desperately dry and dull and frightfully unpopular. An emotive, poetic, allusive, allegorical, metaphorical tale will inevitably be more popular, since it allows people to hang a far wider range of their preconceived ideas.

BTW, going back to the OP, didn't one of the early US presidents have a copy of the NT in which he'd blacked out everything save for direct quotes from Jesus?

JimiTime

There seems to be quite a bit of beating around the bush here Ironically enough. BakkiesBotha, what exactly 'is' the root of your point? That the bible is cr@p? that 'if' God had a part in authoring the bible it would be written like a science paper? That if God had a part in Authoring the bible it would be clear to all exactly what everything meant?

The whole thing seems a bit muddled to me. It started out as something about only taking Jesus' words into account, and then something about not believing the authors, or picking and choosing parts of the bible, and now it seems to be questioning authenticity etc. What is your point?

bakkiesbotha

JimiTime wrote: »

There seems to be quite a bit of beating around the bush here Ironically enough. BakkiesBotha, what exactly 'is' the root of your point? That the bible is cr@p? that 'if' God had a part in authoring the bible it would be written like a science paper? That if God had a part in Authoring the bible it would be clear to all exactly what everything meant?

My point is that one's beliefs are either coherent and consistent or they are not.

The beating around the bush is coming from people who hold incoherent and inconsistent beliefs and want to justify them without admitting that they are incoherent and inconsistent.

JimiTime

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

My point is that one's beliefs are either coherent and consistent or they are not.

The beating around the bush is coming from people who hold incoherent and inconsistent beliefs and want to justify them without admitting that they are incoherent and inconsistent.

So your point is that the bible is incoherant and inconsistant? Christianity is incoherant and inconsistant? Am I one of those holding these incoherant beliefs? Again you still seem to be beating around the bush. What drum exactly are you here to bang?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

So your point is that the bible is incoherant and inconsistant? Christianity is incoherant and inconsistant?

I hope not, since that would be contrary to the Charter.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I hope not, since that would be contrary to the Charter.

Indeed. Am I alone in thinking that this is the crux of what is being said though? It seems that this is what is behind the 'question' from the start. I feel like I'm being 'shown' how my beliefs are incoherant and inconsistant, rather than discussing anything. I may be reading it wrong, but again, there seems to be a lack of clarity in whatever point is trying to be made. Again, though, I may be the one who's muddled.

bakkiesbotha

JimiTime wrote: »

So your point is that the bible is incoherant and inconsistant? Christianity is incoherant and inconsistant? Am I one of those holding these incoherant beliefs? Again you still seem to be beating around the bush. What drum exactly are you here to bang?

I stated my point in very simple terms. You just quoted it.

You seem to be trying to goad me into saying something that I did not come here to say and which would also get me banned. This seems like an underhanded way of aborting this discussion. If you aren't able to make your points using reason, please refrain from posting in this thread.

JimiTime

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

I stated my point in very simple terms. You just quoted it.

You seem to be trying to goad me into saying something that I did not come here to say and which would also get me banned. This seems like an underhanded way of aborting this discussion. If you aren't able to make your points using reason, please refrain from posting in this thread.

Nothing underhand, I'm just asking you to clarify the ground your on. What the MODS feel about the ground you're on is none of my concern. To me though, you just seem to be beating around the bush. I've admitted it could just be me. I'm asking you to clarify what your point is. Are you trying to show how the bible or Christianity or whatever are incoherant and inconsistant? If so, then just state why you think this, and we can discuss it. At the moment, you seem to be just starting with the premise, 'the bible is incoherant and inconsistant' and wanting us to accept that premise. Again, if you didn't beat around the bush, I'd know what it is you're getting at. Its all a bit cloak and dagger.

bakkiesbotha

JimiTime wrote: »

Nothing underhand, I'm just asking you to clarify the ground your on. What the MODS feel about the ground you're on is none of my concern. To me though, you just seem to be beating around the bush. I've admitted it could just be me. I'm asking you to clarify what your point is. Are you trying to show how the bible or Christianity or whatever are incoherant and inconsistant? If so, then just state why you think this, and we can discuss it. At the moment, you seem to be just starting with the premise, 'the bible is incoherant and inconsistant' and wanting us to accept that premise. Again, if you didn't beat around the bush, I'd know what it is you're getting at.

I set out in the first post what this thread is about. What do you mean, my "point?" Do you mean my beliefs? I believe that one's beliefs should be coherent and consistent and should logically follow from certain basic first principles, such as God exists, Jesus is God, etc.

One such belief system is believing only in the words of Christ as reported in the Gospels.

I believe that if one cannot state one's beliefs in such simple terms, and logically trace them back to basic first principles, then one's beliefs are likely to be illogical, incoherent, inconsistent, or all of the foregoing.

Zombrex

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

I believe that one's beliefs should be coherent and consistent and should logically follow from certain basic first principles, such as God exists, Jesus is God, etc.

One such belief system is believing only in the words of Christ as reported in the Gospels.

I believe that if one cannot state one's beliefs in such simple terms, and logically trace them back to basic first principles, then one's beliefs are likely to be illogical, incoherent, inconsistent, or all of the foregoing.

I think what people are not following is why you think that believing in God, believing in Jesus and believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, is being incoherent and inconsistent.

You have said people shouldn't have inconsistent beliefs and then sort of just stated that such a belief is inconsistent, without really explaining why, or at least not as far as I can see.

You haven't really explained that, and I'm an atheist, I jump at the chance to discuss things like this :pac:

Is this the old argument that belief in the Bible is circular? (I believe the Bible because God says it is true in the Bible)